Journalist: The new 1,500-foot-tall Corsten Tower is leaning. From to

Question

Journalist: The new 1,500-foot-tall Corsten Tower is leaning. From top to bottom, the building diverges eighteen inches from perfectly vertical. The city safety code clearly states that any leaning building should be closed to public use, so Corsten Tower should be closed.

Architect: But the legal definition of leaning is a difference from vertical of more than two degrees. Eighteen inches over 1,500 feet is a difference of less than one degree.

Which of the following best describes the argumentative strategy employed by the architect?

A. Rejecting the accuracy of the measurements that the journalist cites in support of the journalist’s conclusion
B. Providing a technical detail that, if added to the journalist’s argument, strengthens it significantly
C. Invoking the contextually relevant criterion for the application of a term in arguing that the journalist’s case is ill founded
D. Showing that the safety code that the journalist cites does not apply to buildings that are 1,500 feet or taller
E. Trying to show that concern for public safety is not the journalist’s real motive in recommending that Corsten Tower be closed

Show Spoiler

Attachment:

GMAT-Club-Forum-tgtcqgu5.png [ 104.05 KiB | Viewed 1644 times ]

Show Answer

Official Answer

C

MartyMurray · Answer

Journalist: The new 1,500-foot-tall Corsten Tower is leaning. From top to bottom, the building diverges eighteen inches from perfectly vertical. The city safety code clearly states that any leaning building should be closed to public use, so Corsten Tower should be closed.

Architect: But the legal definition of leaning is a difference from vertical of more than two degrees. Eighteen inches over 1,500 feet is a difference of less than one degree.

Which of the following best describes the argumentative strategy employed by the architect?

This question is a Method of Reasoning question, and the correct answer will correctly describe how the architect proceeds in arguing.

A. Rejecting the accuracy of the measurements that the journalist cites in support of the journalist’s conclusion

The architect does not reject the accuracy of the measurements. Rather the architect repeats the measurements "eighteen inches over 1,500 feet" in countering the journalist's argument.

Eliminate.

B. Providing a technical detail that, if added to the journalist’s argument, strengthens it significantly

The architect does not provide "a technical detail" but, rather, provides a legal definition.

Also, the architect does not strengthen the journalist's argument but, rather, argues against it.

Eliminate.

C. Invoking the contextually relevant criterion for the application of a term in arguing that the journalist’s case is ill founded

This choice uses language different from any we see in the passage in order to obscure the fact that it's correct. At the same time, we can see that it's correct by comparing what it says with what the architect does.

Doing so, we see the following:

a term = leaning

contextually relevant criterion = the legal definition

arguing that the jounalist's case is ill founded = what the architect does in bringing up the legal definition of "leaning" to show that in the context of "the city safety code" the building is not leaning, so the journalist's case is not well founded

Keep.

D. Showing that the safety code that the journalist cites does not apply to buildings that are 1,500 feet or taller

The architect doesn't say or do anything that shows that the code doesn't apply but, rather, adds information about a legal definition that's involved in the code.

In other words, the architect implies that the code does apply and indicates that the jounalist's conclusion is incorrect because the journalist has not applied the code correctly.

Eliminate.

E. Trying to show that concern for public safety is not the journalist’s real motive in recommending that Corsten Tower be closed

The architect does not say or imply anything about the journalist's motive but, rather, sticks to talking about the code and the building.

Eliminate.

Correct answer:  C

Abhishek009 · Answer

A. Rejecting the   accuracy of the measurements   that the journalist cites in support of the journalist’s conclusion
B. Providing a technical detail that,   if added to the journalist’s argument, strengthens it significantly  
C. Invoking the contextually relevant criterion for the application of a term in arguing that the journalist’s case is ill founded
D. Showing that the safety code that the journalist cites does not apply to buildings that are 1,500 feet or taller
E. Trying to show that   concern for public safety is not the journalist’s real motive   in recommending that Corsten Tower be closed

Options (A) , (B) and (E) can be straightaway rejected for the highlighted errors in the options....

Between (C) and (D) :

IMHO If the safety code clearly states that its regulations and guidelines are applicable to all buildings within the city limits, regardless of their height then Architect's reasoning is negated... The highlighted part mentions only leaning building !!!

NOw check option (D)

Invoking the contextually relevant criterion - True Architect does that. 
for the application of a term - True Architect's argument hinges on the same on application of  the term leaning building.
in arguing that the journalist’s case is ill founded - True the argument presented by the Architect invalidates the argument presented by the Journalist.

Thus, IMHO (C)

KarishmaB · Answer

Journalist: The Corsten Tower is leaning. The city safety code clearly states that any leaning building should be closed to public use, so Corsten Tower should be closed. Architect: But the legal definition of leaning is a difference from vertical of more than two degrees. Corsten tower is leaning by less than one degree. What is the strategy employed by the architect? She says that legally, 'leaning' means more than 2 degree lean. So we can say that the tower is 'leaning' if it has more than 2 degree lean but its lean is less than 1 degree. She implies that 'this means that legally we cannot say that the tower is 'leaning' and hence the city safety code does not apply. So you are wrong' C. Invoking the contextually relevant criterion for the application of a term in arguing that the journalist’s case is ill founded Hence (C) is correct. She invokes (presents) the relevant criterion (more than 2 degree lean) of a term (leaning) in the context of buldings to show that the journalist's case is ill founded. No other option is close. Answer (C) GMAT-Club-Forum-mc6ttprh.png

piyushnagre99 · Answer

Hi  MartyMurray   KarishmaB   Abhishek009  ,

I understand the question and correct answer choice. But I have a doubt.

In similar questions, this answer choice (C) would have been rejected just because the architect is not directly stating that the journalist's case is ill founded, he is just presenting new info (legal definition). But here the answer choice is considered correct.
Please help me understand this inconsistency.

Thanks & regards,
Piyush

KarishmaB · Answer

There is no inconsistency here. 
The architect is addressing the point of the Journalist. He doesn't just state the law. He also addresses the point that 1500 feet that you are talking about is less than 1 degree (arguing that his case is ill founded). For him to respond to the journalist, he doesn't need to use the words "you are wrong" or "your case is ill founded." 
Also as per option (C), he is "invoking  the contextually relevant criterion for the application of a term (and that is how he is arguing)." He is invoking the contextually relevant criterion and hence there is no problem.

MartyMurray · Answer

Let's review what the architect says:

Architect:  But  the legal definition of leaning is a difference from vertical of more than two degrees. Eighteen inches over 1,500 feet is a difference of less than one degree.

One detail of the architect's response that we can notice is that it begins with "but."

In starting the response with "but," the architect indicates that what the architect says contrasts or conflicts with what the journalist has said.

So, even though the architect does not directly say that the journalist's case is ill founded, by using "but," the architect indicates that that's the point of the architect's response.

Journalist: The new 1,500-foot-tall Corsten Tower is leaning. From to

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

­Journalist: The new 1,500-foot-tall Corsten Tower is leaning. From to

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

Journalist: The new 1,500-foot-tall Corsten Tower is leaning. From to